Appendix 5
FURTHER ADVICE
IN RESPECT OF
PROPOSED
LOCAL CONVENIENCE FOODSTORE
POLKA ROAD
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
October 2012
MWA
12 The Glenmore Centre
Jessop Court
Marconi Drive
Waterwells Business Park
Quedgeley
Gloucester
GL2 2AP
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
01452 722323
01452 881972
mark.c.wood@lineone.net
1
5.1
CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION
3
2.0
THE ARK ROYAL AND ADJOINING LAND
4
3.0
IMPACT
12
4.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
18
Appendices:
Appendix [1]
Appendix [2]
Appendix [3]
Indicative layouts associated with the Ark Royal PH and adjoining land.
Decision of the Supreme Court Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13.
Research on linked trips by University of Southampton.
2
5.2
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Following the submission of our report in September 2012, the Applicant through their agents RPS,
have submitted additional information in support of the proposed development. The additional
information is primarily contained within three documents:
Comments on Local Planning Authority’s audit of retail report in respect of impact.
A letter from RPS dated 2nd October 2012.
Response to proposals for mixed use development on Stearmans Yard car park/Ark Royal public
house.
1.2
The last document sets out a critique of illustrative plans for two alternative schemes prepared by
architects (levittbernstein) acting on behalf of a developer bidding to secure the Ark Royal public
house site from the current owners, Enterprise Inns. We discuss the two alternative proposals in
Section 2 of this report.
1.3
The architects have also provided a detailed response to the critique submitted on behalf of the Co-op
and we have taken their comments into account along with a letter dated 10th October 2012
submitted by Enterprise Inns Plc confirming that the site is available and is suitable for the development
of a convenience store either as a standalone unit or as part of mixed use redevelopment.
1.4
We have also had regard to an email from Mr Ellis (Chaldean) dated 11th October 2012 who has
provided additional observations on the availability and suitability of the Ark Royal PH site in
conjunction with adjoining land to accommodate a food store of the size proposed at Polka Road.
1.5
We also made another visit to the town and application site on 9th October.
3
5.3
2.0
THE ARK ROYAL SITE AND ADJOINING LAND
(i) Introduction and context
2.1
In our September 2012 report we made the following observations on the Ark Royal PH and adjoining
land which comprises part of the Stearmans Yard car park (operated and owned by the District
Council).
“5.18
The Stearmans Yard car park is owned by the Council and forms the town’s main car park. It
contains approximately 140 spaces and lies adjacent to the Ark Royal Public House.
Representations by Enterprise Inns state that the Ark Royal PH site is capable of
accommodating a convenience store and highlights the close proximity of the site to the
Primary Retail Frontage of the town centre.
5.19
In our opinion the location of the site is sequentially preferable to that at Polka Road given its
close proximity to the Primary Retail Frontage of the town. Stearmans Yard also forms one of
the principal car parks serving the town centre and from observation visitors can conveniently
and safely walk into and from the town centre.
5.20
The Applicant has rejected the Ark Royal PH on the basis that it is not suited to the
development of a food store capable of clawing back lost weekly shopping trips1. The RAR
initial asserted that the site was not available but this argument is no longer advanced on behalf
of the Applicant.
5.21
Taken in isolation and applying the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd
v Dundee City Council [2012] it is arguable that the site in isolation is not suited to the
development of a food store proposed at Polka Road. However there is in our view scope to
consider the inclusion of part of the Stearmans Yard car park which would afford the
opportunity to accommodate an appropriate number of car parking spaces. As the agent’s
letter of 22nd June confirms the Ark Royal PH extends to approximately 0.25ha which is
sufficient to accommodate a 929 sq.m. gross store together with servicing and delivery area.
Dedicated customer car parking could be provided on adjacent land whilst still enabling a large
number of spaces available for visitors to the town centre, the car park containing
approximately 140 spaces.
5.22
The Applicants have stated that the publicly owned car park is not available and would not
become available within a reasonable period of time and have requested further information
on the circumstances when it might become available in order that its potential to be included
within a redevelopment scheme could be considered. Our understanding is that the Council
would consider releasing part of the site for redevelopment depending upon the number of
spaces required and their subsequent management. This option would not entail the complete
redevelopment of the car park.
5.23
In setting out our comments on the four sites examined we have borne in mind the advice
within the Practice Guidance. Paragraph 6.2 of the Practice Guidance is highly relevant and
states:
“The sequential approach is intended to achieve two important policy objectives:
• First, the assumption underpinning the policy is that town centre sites (or failing
that well connected edge of centre sites) are likely to be the most readily accessible
1
Agent’s letter dated 22
nd
June 2012.
4
5.4
locations by alternative means of transport and will be centrally placed to the
catchments established centres serve, thereby reducing the need to travel.
• The second, related objective is to seek to accommodate main town centre uses in
locations where customers are able to undertake linked trips in order to provide for
improved consumer choice and competition. In this way, the benefits of the new
development will serve to reinforce the vitality and viability of the existing centre.”
5.24
2.3
On the basis of the submitted information we are therefore unable to conclude that the Ark
Royal PH when coupled with the use of part of the adjoining car park would not become
available within a reasonable period of time and would be unsuited to the type and scale of
development proposed at Polka Road. In our opinion having regard to the two key tests
underpinning the sequential approach as set out in paragraph 6.2 of the Practice Guidance we
are unable to accept the Applicant’s claim that the site is unavailable and unsuitable.”
In the light of a substantial amount of information received by both the Applicant and both the owners
and potential purchaser of the Ark Royal PH site, it is appropriate to review our initial advice.
(ii)
Availability
2.4
In a letter from Mr Storey (Asset Manager, Enterprise Inns Plc) dated 10th October it is confirmed that
the company is ‘actively pursuing’ the sale of the site. The letter explains that at the time of the
company’s objection in May 2012, an offer had been accepted and the sale of the land to another party
was expected by the end of September. The deadline was not met and negotiations are underway with
a number of parties who have put forward a range of redevelopment options involving food stores of
between 372 sq.m. and 929 sq.m. on both the Ark Royal site and the adjoining car park. Agreement is
expected to be reached by Christmas 2012.
2.5
Paragraph 6.38 of the Practice Guidance accompanying former PPS4 states:
“A site is considered available for development, when, on the best information available,
there is confidence that there are no insurmountable legal or ownership problems, such
as multiple ownerships, ransom strips, tenancies or operational requirements of
landowners. Two related points include:
• Whether there are any key policy pre-conditions to bringing forward the site, for
example through allocation in the LDF, and if so the timescales and progress made
towards meeting them.
• The ownership of the site, and any evidence of whether the owner(s) of the site appear
willing to bring forward the site for development in question within a reasonable
timescale (or alternatively the progress made by the authority on site
assembly through compulsory purchase where relevant).”
2.6
In assessing the period over which a site should be assessed as being available, paragraph 6.39 of the
Practice Guidance states that it will be appropriate to examine a three to five year period.
2.7
On the basis of the public statement made by the owner of the Ark Royal PH site and in the absence
of any key policy pre-conditions for bringing forward the land, we believe that this site is available.
2.8
In respect of the adjoining public car park the position is less clear cut since we know of no statement
or agreement by the Council which indicates a willingness to sell or leasing the lower part of the
Stearmans Yard car park for development. The car park comprises the largest car park serving the
central part of the town and clearly the loss of around 35 spaces would need to be carefully
considered. While there is a possibility of the land becoming available it is not likely to be available
5
5.5
until alternative car parking to the north of Freeman Street is provided in accordance with the Site
Allocations DPD and which we discuss further below.
(iii)
Suitability
2.9
A potential purchaser of the Ark Royal PH site has put forward two possible redevelopment options
and these are attached as Appendix [1] to this report.
2.10
The first option involves land associated with the Ark Royal PH site in isolation and the main elements
of the scheme are as follows:
The construction of a 929 sq.m. gross supermarket
Two smaller retail units fronting Freeman Street (these could if necessary be amalgamated into the
supermarket)
14 residential units (2 and 3 bedrooms) sited above the store some with private roof terraces
Undercroft parking containing approximately 30 spaces for use by supermarket shoppers and
residents.
Access to the car park from Freeman Street
Loading and unloading of delivery vehicles along Freeman Street via a dedicated lay-by.
2.11
The second option includes the Ark Royal PH site together with part of the adjoining public car park.
The main elements of the scheme are as follows:
The construction of a 929 sq.m. gross supermarket
Two smaller retail units fronting Freeman Street (these could be amalgamated into the
supermarket)
20 residential units (2 and 3 bedroom) sited above the store and undercroft parking some with
private roof terraces
Undercroft parking containing approximately 68 spaces for users of the supermarket and by
residents
Access to the car park from Freeman Street
Loading and unloading of delivery vehicles along Freeman Street via a dedicated lay-by.
Relocation of the public conveniences within the car park.
Access to the upper part of the Stearmans Yard car park would be via the undercroft parking
through the creation of a new ramp.
2.12
RPS on behalf of the Co-op have submitted a detailed critique of the two schemes and architects on
behalf of a prospective purchaser and developer have provided a response. We have considered the
various comments made.
2.13
In considering the suitability of the Ark Royal PH site and the adjoining land it is relevant to note the
advice in paragraph 6.42 of the Practice Guidance. This states:
“When judging the suitability of a site it is necessary to have a proper understanding
of scale and form of development needed, and what aspect(s) of the need are intended to
be met by the site(s). It is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre or
edge of centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development being
proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to make,
either individually or collectively, to meeting the same requirements.”
2.14
Key considerations as set out in paragraph 6.43 of the Practice Guidance include the following:
“Policy restrictions – such as designations, protected areas, existing planning policy and
corporate, or community strategy policy.
6
5.6
• Physical problems or limitations – such as access, infrastructure, ground conditions,
flood risk, hazardous risks, pollution or contamination.
• Potential impacts – including effects on landscape features and conservation.
• The environmental conditions – which would be experienced by potential users of the
proposal.”
2.15
In all cases a ‘balanced judgement’ needs to be made having regard to specific circumstances of the site
in question (paragraph 6.44 of the Practice Guidance).
2.16
It is also necessary to take into account as stated in our previous report, the ruling of the Supreme
Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, where it was held that in defining the
term ‘suitable’ reference should be made to the design of the developer’s proposal subject to the
demonstration of flexibility and realism. It was held that the issue of suitability must be directed at the
developer’s proposals and not to some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the Local
Planning Authority. In other words any assessment must reflect the fact that the Applicant operates in
the real world and is proposing a scheme which addresses the qualitative deficiencies within the
existing store. A copy is attached as Appendix [2].
2.17
At paragraph 21 of the judgment Lord Reed stated:
“A provision in the development plan which requires an assessment of whether a site is
‘suitable’ for a particular purpose calls for judgment in its application.”
2.18
In paragraph 28 Lord Reed acknowledged that:
I said earlier that it was necessary to qualify the statement that the Director and the
respondents proceeded, and were correct to proceed, on the basis that “suitable” meant
“suitable for the development proposed by the applicant”. As paragraph 13 of NPPG 8
makes clear, the application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and realism
from developers and retailers as well as planning authorities2. The need for flexibility and
realism reflects an inbuilt difficulty about the sequential approach. On the one hand, the
policy could be defeated by developers’ and retailers’ taking an inflexible approach to
their requirements. On the other hand, as Sedley J remarked in R v Teesside Development
Corporation, Ex p William Morrison Supermarket plc and Redcar and Cleveland BC [1998]
JPL 23, 43, to refuse an out-of-centre planning consent on the ground that an admittedly
smaller site is available within the town centre may be to take an entirely inappropriate
business decision on behalf of the developer. The guidance seeks to address this problem.
It advises that developers and retailers should have regard to the circumstances of the
particular town centre when preparing their proposals, as regards the format, design and
scale of the development. As part of such an approach, they are expected to consider the
scope for accommodating the proposed development in a different built form, and where
appropriate adjusting or sub-dividing large proposals, in order that their scale may fit
better with existing development in the town centre.”
2.19
The key part of the judgment at paragraph 29 is that in assessing the suitability of an alternative site it
is necessary to proceed on the basis of assessing whether the site is suitable for the proposed
development and not whether the proposed development can be altered or reduced so that it can be
made to fit an alternative site.
2.20
This is confirmed by Lord Hope who at paragraph 38 stated that the assessment must be directed at
what a developer was proposing and not to some other proposal for which the planning authority
2
Although reference is made to Scottish guidance, the advice within the NPPF and the Practice Guidance is similar in
approach.
7
5.7
might seek to substitute for which is something less than that sought by the developer. This is because
developers operate in the real world based on their assessment of market conditions.
2.21
With this ruling in mind and having regard to the submitted information we set out our observations
below.
(a) Policy restrictions
2.22
The loss of the public house would need to be considered in the context of whether it is appropriate
to retain a leisure and community facility which serves residents and visitors to the town. Paragraph 70
of the NPPF seeks the retention of valued facilities and services where they meet day to day needs of
the community and to plan positively for the provision of public houses.
2.23
The Site Allocations DPD (2011) at paragraph 11.0.3 notes:
“Wells has a thriving tourism industry that supports the economic vitality of the town.
Due to the remote rural location and the limited public transport available many visitors
arrive by car. Currently there are inadequate car parking facilities to meet seasonal
demand which often results in on-street car parking and congestion within the town’s
narrow streets. Additional off-street parking would help alleviate these problems. There
has been a long-held desire to remove car parking from the Quayside, thus creating a
more attractive environment for residents and visitors. This would, however, reduce the
parking available in the town. Temporary planning permission has been granted in recent
years for use of the football club as a seasonal public car park, but this is not regarded as
a suitable long term solution.”
2.24
The importance of maintaining public car parking is underlined by Policy CP2 of the Site Allocations
DPD which identifies land to the north of Freeman Street for a new 300 space car park. Permission
was granted (App. No. PF/10/0484) for such a car park but it is not clear when this proposal would
come forward. It nonetheless highlights the Council’s recognition of the need to improve car parking
serving the town centre in the event that the 80 spaces on the quay are removed from use.
2.25
Policy EC6 of the Core Strategy refers to public car parking. This states:
“Designated Car Parks identified on the Proposals Map will be protected. Elsewhere,
development proposals that would result in the loss of public car parking facilities which
makes an important contribution to the local parking provision will not be permitted
unless alternative equivalent provision is made available in a suitable location prior to the
commencement of development.”
2.26
Paragraph 3.2.24 provides an explanation as to why retaining designated car parks such as Stearmans
Yard is so important:
“Given the important role which the Town Centres and Service Villages play in providing
a variety of facilities and services to an extensive rural community with limited public
transport provision, as well as being focal points for North Norfolk's tourism economy, it
is considered that maintaining parking provision in the selected settlements at present
levels is essential. It is therefore necessary to include a policy to protect car parking
provision in such settlements.”
2.27
Having regard to this policy and the local circumstances in relation to Wells we do not believe
therefore that the Stearmans Yard car park would be considered suitable for redevelopment within a
mixed use scheme or a scheme involving a single supermarket. In our opinion the prevailing policy
position strongly indicates that the loss of approximately 35 public car parking spaces would be
8
5.8
contrary to adopted policy EC6 and in the absence of suitable alternative provision would be
unacceptable. The Council will need to determine whether it considers it appropriate to release part
of the Stearmans Yard car park in the absence of suitable alternative provision elsewhere such as part
of the Freeman Street development.
(b) Physical problems or limitations
2.28
We are not aware of any limitations in respect of infrastructure, flood risk, hazardous risks, pollution
or contamination of the Ark Royal PH or the adjoining car park.
2.29
In terms of the size of the Ark Royal PH site this appears from the submitted indicative drawings to be
capable of accommodating a store of approximately 929 sq.m. gross although this may also require the
inclusion of the two shop units. To this extent it is capable of accommodating in terms of the built
footprint a store of similar size to that proposed at Polka Road.
2.30
However this is not the end of the issue. The indicative scheme indicates approximately 30 spaces
within an undercroft car park although we note the suggestion that an additional 40 spaces over and
above those indicated could be provided. The proposed spaces are intended to meet the needs of
supermarket shoppers and residents. In noting that the scheme is indicative it is in our view likely that
a detailed design would result in few additional spaces over and above the 30 indicated and based on
the assumption of only one space per dwelling, this would result in approximately 16 spaces for
shoppers. This is an unrealistically low level of provision to serve a modern supermarket which is
specifically aimed at addressing a quantitative and qualitative need in the Wells area and which must be
‘fit for purpose’ i.e. it must be capable of competing effectively with larger food stores in Fakenham
and elsewhere which provide free, surface level car parking designed to meet and attract bulky food
shopping needs.
2.31
In this regard it is necessary to assess the Applicant’s proposal as a whole and not just the size of the
building which is proposed to be erected. The provision of surface level and convenient car parking is
an intrinsic part of the assessment which has been made to serve the market and the need for
flexibility in our opinion does not extend to the provision of car parking which is more closely aligned
with a small convenience store of c 400 sq.m. gross compared with a modern supermarket designed to
meet the operational needs of a national retailer.
2.32
Coupled to this concern are the intended delivery arrangements via a lay-by off Freeman Street. While
it is no doubt the case that this arrangement can occur in many urban locations it is a less than perfect
arrangement given the frequency and timing of delivery vehicles. Moreover the proximity of residential
properties along Freeman Road and above the proposed shop may well create unacceptable
environmental impacts.
2.33
In terms of the adjoining Stearmans Yard site, the provision of 68 parking spaces represents an
increase on the smaller site redevelopment. Assuming a minimum of 20 were required for residents,
this would leave 48 to serve the store. This is a better level of provision but would not of course
provide any replacement town centre parking spaces. Moreover any spaces would fall within the
control of the residents or the proposed supermarket operator who would wish to ensure a minimum
level to serve the store.
2.34
Accessing the upper part of Stearmans Yard through the undercroft car parking also appears to
present difficulties in that users would pass through the retail and residential car park to access the
public spaces beyond. It is not clear whether drivers approaching from the public car park would then
also be able to access Freeman Street as at present.
9
5.9
(c) Potential impacts
2.35
The impact on the streetscape and setting of listed buildings would need to be carefully assessed but
there seems little evidence to indicate that a suitable design could not be created. The overall height of
the houses on the upper floor would need careful consideration in terms of their massing and height.
(d) Environmental conditions
2.36
The main consideration here relates to the impact of noise and activity on existing and future
residential occupiers as a consequence of operation of a supermarket on the site. Noise in particular
will be generated by customers’ vehicles, deliveries including the pushing of metal pallets across the
pavement into the store and plant and equipment.
2.37
We agree that the majority of these impacts could be mitigated. However the noise associated with
deliveries which would occur along Freeman Street could not be adequately mitigated and could only
be reduced by requiring deliveries during a typical ‘working day’ thereby avoiding sleep and other
disturbance.
(iv) Viability
2.38
The NPPF no longer refers directly to viability as a main consideration in assessing whether a site is
suitable. The Practice Guidance at paragraph 6.47 refers to the degree to which there is a reasonable
prospect that a development would occur taking into account market, cost and delivery factors.
Paragraph 6.49 states that where an alternative site is being actively promoted by a developer/retailer
this is a reasonable indicator that a location may be viable. It also states that it may be relevant to
consider whether it is being used as a means of ‘blocking’ new development in less central locations.
2.39
In the case of the Ark Royal PH site we understand that Hill Partnerships have made an unconditional,
offer for the site and we assume that this offer has been informed by the indicate redevelopment
proposals. This is likely to include an element of residential use above the store which may have
implications for how the store would operate.
2.40
In respect of Stearmans Yard, there is no agreement to sell this land and consequently the cost of its
purchase and redevelopment is not known.
2.41
Overall therefore there is no evidence to suggest that it is not viable to develop a supermarket on the
Ark Royal PH site.
(v) Overall conclusions
2.42
In summary our conclusions are as follows:
The ARK Royal PH site is available.
The adjoining Stearmans Yard public car park is not currently available and we are unable to
conclude on the balance of probability that it will become so within a reasonable period of time.
However ultimately it is a matter for the Council to decide on this matter.
The Stearmans Yard public car park is in our view not suitable for redevelopment given the
adopted Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD which seek to retain and improve the level of car
parking serving the town centre. Its redevelopment could in our view only be sanctioned in the
event that suitable alternative provision was made elsewhere.
10
5.10
The loss of the public house might be judged to be contrary to national advice to maintain leisure
and community facilities which meet a local need. However Policy CT.3 of the Core Strategy
would not prevent the loss of the public house provided equivalent or better quality provision was
available in the area. Additionally the benefit of providing a supermarket would need to be
balanced against any such loss particularly since the development would occur on an edge of
centre site with the potential to stimulate linked shopping and other trips. The direct impact on
the town centre would on a like for like basis be similar to that associated with a less central or
out of centre development.
The Ark Royal PH is in isolation and in theory capable of accommodating a food store extending
to approximately 929 sq.m. gross. However we believe that the proposed car parking and delivery
arrangements coupled with the proximity of existing and proposed residential development would
result in a sub-standard supermarket development.
Reducing the size of any foodstore to say 650-750 sq.m. gross provide either additional car parking
and/or improved servicing and delivery arrangements would be possible but this would result in a
scale and form of development which would in our view be significantly different from the model
proposed by the Co-op at Polka Road. It would in short conflict with the approach set out in the
Supreme Court judgement.
The provision of a convenience store on the site would be feasible but again this would involve a
form of retail development which did not reflect the Applicant’s assessment of the local market
and the need to meet main food shopping needs.
2.43
In our opinion the question therefore as to whether the Ark Royal PH site is suitable and therefore
whether the proposal for a supermarket at Polka Road complies with the sequential approach to site
selection, is finely balanced. The owner of the Ark Royal PH has made it clear that the site will be sold
and a prospective developer has supplied information which seeks to demonstrate that it is suitable.
There are a number of benefits in seeing it redeveloped including the ability to enhance the local
townscape and increase shopping choice in a sustainable location accessible by a range of means of
transport. It may also be possible to provide a supermarket as part of a mixed use scheme involving
smaller shop units and residential.
2.44
Our main concerns however relate to the sub-standard nature of the proposed car parking and
delivery arrangements and the impact of the store’s operation with existing uses in the area including
the impact on existing residents and proposed residents. A single supermarket on its own may also be
unviable although the position on this is not clear.
2.45
The inclusion of part of the Stearmans Yard public car park is rejected because it is not suitable due to
the protected nature and importance of the existing use.
2.46
On balance therefore we conclude that the Ark Royal PH is not suitable for the scale and type of food
retail development proposed at Polka Road.
11
5.11
3.0
IMPACT
(i) Introduction
3.1
RPS have provided additional information in support of their client’s development which seeks to
address matters raised in our initial audit. In summary RPS make the following points;
Anglia Co-op does not publish company average turnover levels. The predicted turnover is based
on existing levels of shopping provision taking into account the fact that it would be the largest
store in the catchment area. Consequently the predicted convenience goods turnover estimated
by MWA at £3.1m is too high particularly since 10% of the sales area would be devoted to the sale
of comparison i.e. non-food and convenience goods.
The provision of a new supermarket will provide much needed competition with larger out of
centre food stores in Fakenham and Cromer.
The North Norfolk Retail Study (NNRS)(2005) estimated that the town centre was achieving
turnover levels significantly in excess of what would normally be expected for a relatively small
coastal town and this may reflect its popularity as a tourist destination. The NNRS estimated that
the town centre achieved a convenience goods sales density of £14,147 sq.m. (2001 prices) and
this was adjusted to £6,700 sq.m. Within its primary catchment area the town was estimated to
attract £2.2m of convenience goods expenditure while the amount attracted from outside was
substantially reduced although the expenditure from tourists remained high at around 40% of the
total. Based on the NNRS the convenience goods turnover of the town centre in 2011 would be
£4.3m (2009 prices).
It is difficult to assess company average or benchmark turnover levels for the town centre because
the majority of retailers comprise small, independent outlets. However based on estimates
achieved in Sheringham the town centre is estimated to achieve a benchmark convenience goods
turnover of approximately £1.8m which is well below the predicted or actual trading levels.
The primary catchment area generates £7.8m of convenience goods expenditure in 2011. On the
basis the estimated convenience goods turnover of £2.4m used in the RAR, would equate to a loss
of £5.4m per annum or 70% of the total.
Assuming a design year turnover of £3.1m in 2016 and allowing for an increase in floorspace
efficiency levels within the town centre of 0.2% per annum between 2011 and 2016 leading to a
town centre turnover of £4.4m at that date, the new store could divert approximately £0.5m3
equating to an impact of 11%.
The impact needs to be placed in context because the town centre is achieving trading levels well
in excess of what would normally be expected in a town of this size. Even if 30% of the proposed
turnover (£0.93m) was to be drawn from the town centre the resultant turnover of around £3.5m
would remain in excess of the benchmark level.
There would be no significant impact from comparison goods sold in the store given the estimated
comparison goods turnover of Wells of £12.1m4 in 2011 (based on the NNRS). Consequently the
impact on the total turnover of the town centre would be approximately 3%.
3
4
The precise estimate is £460,000.
2001 prices.
12
5.12
This impact would be off-set by an increase in the proportion of linked shopping and other trips.
Based on research undertaken by the University of Southampton an estimated of the monetary
value of linked trips is estimated to be between £231,000 and £369,700 per annum.
No store closures within the town centre are predicted and it is noted that none of the existing
retailers have claimed that they would be forced into closure.
Based on the test set out within paragraph 27 of the NPPF, it is concluded that the development is
not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the town’s vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area.
(ii) Commentary
3.2
The additional information provided by RPS is helpful in allowing us to form a view on whether the
proposed development is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the town centre. We maintain
our view however that it does not set out in a methodical manner a step by step approach as
advocated within paragraph D.23 of the Practice Guidance. Nonetheless we have used our own
judgment to assess the submitted information to provide our final advice to the Council on this
particular issue.
(a) No development scenario
3.3
In our opinion it is worth highlighting advice contained within the Practice Guidance which accompanied
the revoked PPS4. Paragraph D.4 of the guidance advises that it is appropriate to examine the position
which would result in the event that proposed retail development did not occur including the potential
effect of commitments elsewhere.
3.4
Table B in our audit set out the leakage of convenience goods expenditure within the 10 minute drive
time in 2012 and 2017. This is repeated below:
Table B: Leakage of convenience goods expenditure within 10 minute drive time 20122017
Total resident population
Total Resident Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Inflow of Convenience Goods expenditure £m (10%)
Total Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Convenience goods turnover of Wells-Next-the-Sea
Centre £m
Retention Rate
‘Leakage’ of Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
3.5
Change
2012 to 2017
+112
+0.30
2012
4,031
2017
4,143
7.8
0.78
8.58
8.1
0.81
8.91
0.03
+0.33
2.4
28%
6.18
2.55
28%
6.41
+0.1
+0%
+0.67
The table indicates that under a ‘do nothing’ scenario the town would lose over £6m of convenience
goods expenditure per annum and over the 5 year period to 2017 this would equate to a loss in
excess of £30m. The majority of this will be in the form of main food expenditure which is largely
5
Based on increase in floorspace efficiency of 0.2% per annum and assumes the net convenience goods trading area within
the town of 527 sq.m. as per the 2005 study. This would equate to approximately £4,750 sq.m. in 2017. While this is
somewhat on the low side it should be remembered that the inflow of 10% is likely to be conservative and consequently
additional expenditure is likely to be attracted to the centre.
13
5.13
incapable of being met within existing town centre shops. The continued loss of this expenditure in
our opinion emphasises the unsustainable pattern of shopping trips which is supporting the turnover of
food stores further afield, particularly the Morrisons and Tesco stores in Fakenham. As paragraph B.53
of the Practice Guidance notes maintaining constant market shares will mean that retail destinations
with the highest share will continue to attract the highest proportion of expenditure and this will in
essence perpetuate the status quo. Paragraph B.54 advises that in certain circumstances it may not be
appropriate to maintain this position.
3.6
The development of a Tesco store in Sheringham and Lidl in Cromer which is currently under
construction will do little to reduce the annual loss. Consequently we do not believe that a ‘do
nothing’ scenario is an appropriate or sustainable option.
(b) Turnover and trade draw
3.7
We note the observations of RPS in respect of the predicted design year turnover. However
paragraph D.14 of the Practice Guidance states that any assumptions that new development will only
achieve a potential retailers’ respective company average should be treated with caution. It advises
that operators will seek to improve their turnover over time by the development of new, more
efficient stores in which case sensitivity testing may be necessary.
3.8
The Co-op accepts that the proposed store will be the largest within the catchment area and in our
view while it will compete to a significant extent with food stores further afield, it would also overlap
to some extent with the role and function of existing food and convenience goods outlets in the town
centre.
3.9
RPS have however applied sensitivity testing by adopting a higher convenience goods turnover of
£3.1m and then assuming that between 15% and 30% of its turnover would be drawn from the town
centre. We believe that the trade draw assumptions used in respect of the town centre are robust and
provide an appropriate basis for assessing impact although we do note that there has been no attempt
to quantify the impact on food stores and other shops outside of the catchment area. While we do
not believe that the impact on other centres will be significantly adverse, the absence of detailed
information on the trade draw (and thereby the impact) means that it is necessary to apply the
sensitivity assumptions to the potential impact on Wells town centre to assess a possible ‘worse case’.
(c) Impact
3.10
RPS have revised their estimate of the town centre turnover. In the RAR it was estimated that the
town centre achieved a turnover of approximately £2.4m of which £250,0006 would be diverted to the
proposed store.
3.11
Subsequently RPS have upgraded their estimated of the town’s convenience goods turnover to £4.3m
in 2011 (2009 prices) rising to £4.4m by 2016. This reflects the survey evidence which informed the
NNRS. They have also assumed based on a design year turnover of £3.1m for the proposed store that
£460,0007 would be drawn from the town centre equating to an impact of around 10%.
3.12
To test the sensitivity of this assumption if 30% of the proposed store’s turnover were to be diverted
from the town centre (£0.93m) this would equate to an impact of around 21%.
3.13
Paragraph D.30 of the Practice Guidance provides advice on how to assess the likely impact. It states:
“First, it will always be relevant to consider the character of the development proposed,
to judge its likely trading impact. There is a general assumption that ‘like affects like’, so,
6
7
Based on an assumed benchmark turnover of £2.5m of which 10% would be drawn from the town centre.
c15%.
14
5.14
for example, in an area already served by large modern foodstores, the effects of a new
large food superstore are likely to fall disproportionately on the existing competing
stores. Their proportionate impact on local independent retailers, or discount foodstores
for example may be less.
Second, it is relevant to consider distance, based on the assumption that generally
consumers will seek to use the closest comparable facility. So, for example, if in a given
zone a relatively small proportion of trade is attracted to a facility which is similar to, but
considerably further away than the proposal in question, it is likely to have a
disproportionate effect on that facility.”
3.14
In respect of the first consideration the proposed food store is in our view proportionately more
likely to compete with larger food stores in Fakenham and Cromer. It is intended to provide the
opportunity for meeting some of the main food shopping needs of local residents which the current
shops within the town centre including the recently converted Costcutter (now Nisa Extra) cannot
realistically hope to meet. In this regard the scheme proposes a store which is more comparable in
terms of size, function and quality which are found in the Morrison stores in Fakenham and Cromer
and the existing and proposed Tesco stores in Fakenham and Sheringham.
3.15
Furthermore it is clear that Wells town centre retains a relatively limited proportion of turnover
generated within its catchment area. On the basis that it were to achieve a £4.4m turnover in 2017,
this would equate to around 54% of the total generated within the catchment area equating to a loss
of £3.7m. which would be sufficient to accommodate the proposed turnover of the Polka Road store
based on the higher turnover of £3.1m
3.16
Of course this analysis is unrealistic in so far as the survey results from the NNRS clearly indicate that
around 40% of the town’s convenience goods turnover is drawn from outside the catchment area.
This would equate to around £1.76 meaning that in practice the centre retained only around 33% of
the expenditure generated within the 10 minute catchment area. Even in the event that the 40%
figures estimated in 2005 is too high there is little doubt that the town loses a significant level of
expenditure to competing centres and larger food stores. Thus proportionately the trade draw from
the town centre because of its relatively limited market share will be correspondingly less.
(i) Is the impact likely to be significant?
3.17
Paragraph 5.10 of the Practice Guidance provides the context for interpreting whether a particular
impact would be significant. It states:
“In assessing whether an impact is significant, it should be remembered that any new
development involving town centre uses will lead to an impact on existing facilities, and
as new development takes place in one town centre this will enhance its competitive
position relative to other centres. This is a consequence of providing for efficient modern
retailing and other key town centre uses, and promoting choice, competition and
innovation.”
3.18
Paragraph D.33 of the Practice Guidance also acknowledges that a key factor influencing the significance
of the levels of impact is the current performance of existing centres and the degree to which any
planned investment would be undermined.
3.19
In the context of Wells in our opinion based on our visits to the centre and noting the results of the
NNRS and the applicant’s RAR, we believe that it is fundamentally vital and viable as evidenced by the
very low vacancy levels, strong pedestrian flows and wide range of shops and services. This is
reinforced by its high quality townscape, its attractive coastal location and its popularity as a tourist
destination.
15
5.15
3.20
The existing outlets largely comprise small independently owned and operated businesses. These
include various outlets operated by Howell’s including a bakery, fishmonger and delicatessen. Kingsleys
operate a food and wine outlet and there is a Martin’s newspaper and confectionery shop. The former
Costcutter now operating as Nisa Extra remains the largest convenience goods outlet in the centre
but it is clear that this is largely used for top-up shopping purchases although we accept that some
residents are likely to use it for some main food shopping trips.
3.21
It is inevitable that the introduction of a new supermarket would divert trade from existing retailers
due largely to the lack of any new retail provision in recent years. The issue however is not however
the impact on individual retailers but whether it would have an impact on the centre as a whole.8 The
Government is committed to promoting competition between retailers and enhanced consumer
choice and the issue in the context of paragraph 26 of the NPPF is two fold:
1. Impact on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in a
centre
3.22
There is no committed public or private sector investment in Wells which would be adversely affected
by the scheme. However as we have indicated in section 2 there are plans to promote a convenience
store on the Ark Royal PH site.
3.23
Having regard to our conclusions in Section 2 we do not believe that the Ark Royal PH is suitable to
accommodate the scale and form of development proposed at Polka Road although this matter is
finely balanced. In our opinion granting permission for a 929 sq.m. gross supermarket on the
application site would not prevent the redevelopment of the Ark Royal PH site for a smaller
convenience store although it could be likely to deter the development of a larger store.
2. Impact on the town’s vitality and viability
3.24
We do not believe that the predicted impact would undermine the vitality and viability of the centre
whose health is generally robust and exhibits a buoyancy often lacking in centres of similar or larger
size. The predicted trade draw would in our view allow existing retailers to trade at above what would
be regarded as viable, benchmark levels and we agree with RPS that closure of shops is unlikely to
occur.
3.25
There would be some loss of trade from the town centre but not loss of local consumer choice. As
paragraph 26 of the NNPF notes it is also appropriate to examine the increase in consumer choice and
trade within the wider area. The introduction of a new supermarket would represent a dramatic
increase in choice and significantly enhance the ability of local residents to undertake main food
shopping within the immediate area.
3.26
It would also lead to an overall increase in trade within the wider area increasing it by approximately
£2.6m in 2017. This would equate to an increase in retention from around 28% to around 58% which
we believe is realistic and sustainable.
(ii) Can the impact be off-set by linked shopping and other trips?
3.27
We are familiar with the research undertaken by the University of Southampton which concluded
overall that:
8
Paragraphs D.10 and D.38 of the Practice Guidance, the latter stating: In all cases however it is important that the impacts
are considered on the vitality and viability of the whole of a centre or centres, not simply on individual facilities
which may be similar to the proposed development
16
5.16
“Evidence from the studys' consumer surveys relating to linked trip propensities, show that new foodstores are
not just used for one stop shopping.‟ Indeed, 68% of respondents claimed to combine visits to the new
foodstores with visits to other shops or services in the existing retail centres...”
3.28
The key findings of the 2010 research undertaken by the University of Southampton show that:
Supermarkets are not just for ‘one-stop’ shopping. Shoppers link their supermarket trips with
visits to other shops, increasing town centre footfall and enhancing vitality and viability.
Town centre traders are positive about the impacts of such development on themselves and their
families, other local residents, and the town centre.
3.29
Extracts from the research are attached as Appendix [3] to this report.
3.30
RPS has attempted to quantify the amount of expenditure generated within the town centre as a
consequence of encouraging new trips to and from the town centre. This is estimated to be between
£0.23m and £0.37m based on an approach adopted by other consultants acting for Tesco Stores Ltd in
Swaffham. As with any estimate the analysis includes using professional judgment to estimate the
amount of additional trade which could be attracted based on the assumption that 30% of customers
to the Co-op store undertook a linked trip and then spent between £15 and £20 per trip.
3.31
The assessment does not of course quantify the number of shoppers which would divert to the new
store who would otherwise have shopped in the town centre after visiting the relevant food and
convenience goods stores on the same visit. Additionally the assessment to some degree is reliant on
linked trips being undertaken by foot and by car and the propensity for the former would be increased
in the event that improvements in the accessibility of the application site and the town centre were
made.
3.32
Therefore while we are unable to corroborate the magnitude of the linked trips we do believe that on
balance, some additional turnover would be generated within the town centre and as a worse case this
would off-set expenditure lost from linked trips already occurring between food and convenience
goods outlets and other businesses.
(d) Overall conclusions
3.33
Having regard to the additional information we do not believe that the scheme is likely to have a
significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre or reduce consumer choice.
It would lead to an overall increase in trade within the wider area.
3.34
In respect of existing and committed investment in the centre we do not believe that this factor is a
significant consideration given the health of the town centre and the absence of any schemes with
planning permission. However it is unlikely that a second supermarket of similar size (should this be
physically and practically possible) would be developed on the Ark Royal PH and this possibility would
therefore be reduced in the event that permission was granted. It would not in our opinion however
reduce the possibility of developing a smaller convenience store of say 350-450 sq.m. gross on the Ark
Royal PH site.
17
5.17
4.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
4.1
This report sets out further advice to the Council regarding the retail policy issues associated with the
development of a supermarket at Polka Road. This is based on reviewing additional information from
the Applicants and the owners and prospective purchasers of the Ark Royal PH along Freeman Street.
The scheme would therefore comply with the relevant part of Policy EC5 within the adopted Core
Strategy and paragraph 24 of the NPPF.
4.2
In relation to the degree to which the scheme complies with the sequential approach we conclude that
on balance this has been met for the reasons set out in Section 2. In making an assessment it is also in
our view important to stress the need to make a qualitative improvement in food shopping provision
particularly in the form of a store designed to meet some of the area’s main food shopping needs. The
proposal by the Co-op would deliver a store of an appropriate scale and in a relatively sustainable
location which would allow the town as a whole to retain a higher proportion of convenience goods
expenditure. This would result in a more sustainable form of development and would secure the
redevelopment of a brownfield site in need of regeneration.
4.3
In addition to create new employment opportunities many of which would no doubt be available to
local residents, there is scope to provide a petrol filling station on the adjoining land and which is
subject to a separate planning application. As paragraph 1.3.13 of the Core Strategy notes:
“The town also acts as a local service centre, but its remote location, in addition to the
high price of housing, pushed up by second-home ownership, has created problems in
terms of retaining local services (there is no petrol filling station in the town and there is
currently spare capacity at local schools) and in providing for affordable housing for
local people including key workers.”
4.4
These are benefits which need to be assessed in the overall balance of planning considerations.
4.5
In relation to the impact on the town centre, the inevitable consequence of introducing a food store is
that some trade diversion from existing businesses will occur. The Practice Guidance recognises that
this is a truism but states that the assessment must be made having regard to the impact on the centre
as a whole.
4.6
Having reviewed the additional information supplied by the Applicant’s we are able to conclude that it
is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the choice of shopping within the town or on its
overall vitality and viability. In this regard we do believe however that in order to ensure that linked
shopping and other trips are generated between the site and the town centre, that improvements to
the pedestrian and cycle links are secured as part of a section 106 obligation. In addition we believe
that such improvements could extend to increase the signage between the store and town centre
thereby allowing non-residents to be aware of the proximity and accessibility of the town centre from
the site. We believe that these improvements would meet the tests in Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, paragraph 204 of the NPPF and the Council’s adopted
policy on planning obligations and retail development.
18
5.18